Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK so here we are.

The glory days of early 2000s with new army list in practically every WD and summer campaigns with 3-4 varient lists are over. GW has said 'nevermore'.

And while the first problem of that time is solved (too many rules for anyone to track) the second problem (imbalance) has not. Codexes are more in line but still not balanced very well.

And many armies or at least sub-armies have been left orphans.

Lost and the Damned is the most obvious one. Cases can be made that Kroot, Genestealer Cults, some of the Craftworlds and some of the Chaos legions need new lists as well. And I would be good money that next year a whole slew of Marine and IG varient armies are going to get it in the neck. My own included. I don't play fantasy but I know that many of their lists have been axed and dropped. No full armies but lots of difficult to build varients.

And without even a semi-official channel like Citadel Journal we have no hope of seeing anything from GW for them.

Fan-made lists are hard enough to push through a gaming group, much less get them accepted widely. In the 2000s when GW was more willing to listen to fans (they had message boards, actual articles in WD and so on) one group (can't remember name) got Dark Eldar changes published and IIRC Bolter and Chainsword got Dark Angel changes through. These groups had modest ideas and play tested them pretty thoroughly. Other groups like HBMC's rules rewrite are doing good jobs of this. So it can be done. But now GW is not giving them its seal of approval.

So, a draft plan for how to make a parallel, informal version of GW rules.

1 - Start small, no more than 2 or 3 test armies. Preferably ones that already exist like L&D. Don't rewrite whole rule book.
2 - Website with room for easy feeback from play testers.
3 - A tournament when half the players bring standard armies and half playtest armies. Get feedback all along the way.
4 - Finally put out a final version, set in stone for that edition. Accept that some things might be imprefted and move on. Otherwise you'll tinker forever.
4 - Finally a brand. Adepticon has managed to establish itself as a gold standard for GW-related tournament. Something similar like 'Dakka Approved' or "Bolter and Chainsword Approved' or 'Kyoto Approved' the people would respect almost as much as 'GW approved' would have to be the final step.

What do people think, could this work?

I'd be all for it. Under Russ, things like "Dakka Approved" were frowned upon, but who knows what yak would be up for.

On a similar note, I've written some rules for 40k armies using Warmachine rules. This is a bit different from what you're proposing, but I'd like to hitch myself to this wagon, if it gets going.

I think that some fan rules have gained a fairly widespread acceptance. Tim Huckleberry's Genestealer Cult and AdMech Explorator lists seem to be fairly widely-accepted.

While making lists is fun, the problem is playtesting is very difficult, and therefore acceptance is equally problematic. What's cool and unique to one person is broken and unfair to another.

And it got to be painful to keep up with all of the rules and variations at that time. You had to keep buying WDs for the new list or rule of the month. And carrying all that stuff was a royal pain. Even the CA compilations weren't great as you had Rulebook, a couple CAs, and still needed WDs for new stuff, along with updated FAQs.

In many ways, Apocalypse default for friendly tolerance is a good solution for this problem, as it is very unlikely that a homebrew list would be accepted for Tournament play anyways.

When half the players cry how broken the list ist and the other half can't see the problem of the first group, it is a pretty average list.

Personaly im all for this! Ive been waiting for GW to update the Kroot rules since we at the Kompleatly Kroot Forum got a message from the original wrighter back in 2005 saying that they were going to update it!

There is not much that needs to be done to fix it up but it just comes down to as everyone said getting the ballance right. If anyone wishes to hear my Fix and ill post it up.

Piles of cash.

Isn't this the method they used to create army lists for Epic Armageddon on the Specialist games website?

The question I always have is how do you get other people to playtest and give feedback on your homebrew list? You will notice that on most forums the Rules Dev sections are practically a barren wasteland.

I hate stupid double poopypoopoo posts that are stupid and poopy!

Wouldn't this risk running afoul of GW's IP attack dogs? You'd basically be writing rules based on GW's IP. Of course GW isn't going to go after little Johnny if all he does is make some house rules and FAQs for use with his local gaming group. But if you started writng your own lists and distributing them, and (more importantly) if they started gaining widespread recognition and acceptance, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ended up with a Ceast & Desist and/or lawsuit.

I think you could make your own army list! In fact its exactly what I'm planning to do....mostly cause I'm bored with what GW has at the moment, and I like the idea of being completely in control of how my army and "race" will develope.

I think as long as you steer clear of certain I.P and copyrighted words, it should be no worries.

The army I'm creating is decended from the Human race....so rather than calling erath Terra, I'm gonna call it Earth (go figure!)...becuase this race of humans hasn't been subjected to da Emporer...it doesn't need to be called the warp, I'll think of a new name for it!

You can't patent rules, only copyright the form of words in which they are written down. It should be possible to duplicate all the rules in an official list by changing the games (Toughness becomes Resistance, and so on...)

Also GW would be insane to attack their biggest fans who are voluntarily writing extra stuff that is likely to sell extra figures.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Wouldn't this risk running afoul of GW's IP attack dogs? You'd basically be writing rules based on GW's IP. Of course GW isn't going to go after little Johnny if all he does is make some house rules and FAQs for use with his local gaming group. But if you started writng your own lists and distributing them, and (more importantly) if they started gaining widespread recognition and acceptance, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ended up with a Ceast & Desist and/or lawsuit.

I think this would be one of the best things to happen (the C&D, not a lawsuit). It would be acknowledgment that the list it widely used. Then we could get a montage of the plucky users trying to work around the GW suits.

Then we could start an online petition to get them to stop! Hurr....

I'd be up for getting the trial rules in some tournaments at my FLGS.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't patent rules, only copyright the form of words in which they are written down.

The concern is not using "copyrighted" game mechanics. The problem is writing original game mechanics for use with GW's IP - i.e. the Lost and the Damned, the Chaos gods, the traitor legions, Kroot mercenaries, Eldar craftworlds.

Also GW would be insane to attack their biggest fans who are voluntarily writing extra stuff that is likely to sell extra figures.

But whose figures? When's the last time you've seen GW release squats, genestealer hybrids, or mutants? If GW wants to sell you something they'll release it along with official rules.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:4 - Finally a brand. Adepticon has managed to establish itself as a gold standard for GW-related tournament. Something similar like 'Dakka Approved' or "Bolter and Chainsword Approved' or 'Kyoto Approved' the people would respect almost as much as 'GW approved' would have to be the final step.

This is what will make the GW IP folks freak out the most. If successful this proposal would essentially lead to the creation of a rival "brand" using GW's own IP to compete against them.

There's a reason why Mongoose doesn't release an unlicensed Star Wars: Call to Arms. If you start distributing unlicensed rival rulesets based on the 40K universe you'll be getting C&Ds faster than Greedo shooting first.

Pariah Press wrote: Tim Huckleberry's Genestealer Cult and AdMech Explorator lists seem to be fairly widely-accepted.

Ugh. Speaking as an ad mech player, this codex is a case of too many cooks (ideas) spoiling the broth (overall theme).

I've yet to see anyone who uses this list in person, and think it's far too overcomplicated.

More on topic:

1 - Start small, no more than 2 or 3 test armies. Preferably ones that already exist like L&D. Don't rewrite whole rule book.

Kroot and Lost and Damned are good options in that case, with Genestealer cult and Adeptus Mechanicus after that.

2 - Website with room for easy feeback from play testers.

Someone would need to set it up. I'm quite happy to host the Ad Mech part over at the Adeptus Mechanicus forum:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/adeptusmechanicus/index.php?act=idx
We could use some extra traffic!

3 - A tournament when half the players bring standard armies and half playtest armies. Get feedback all along the way.

Contact the Tempus Fugitives. They already run campaign weekends at GW Nottingham with armies written specifically for the campaign. I'm sure they'd be interested in your ideas. In fact, they might even run a campaign specifically to do so.

4 - Finally put out a final version, set in stone for that edition. Accept that some things might be imprefted and move on. Otherwise you'll tinker forever.

An excellent idea, but very difficult to put into practice. Democracy's great in theory, but you need a benevolent dictator to say 'right, that's it'. With no deadline, where do you decide? Of course, if you manage to organise a tournament, then two months before should be fine for a final version; and you can tweak it based on the results.

4 - Finally a brand.

5?

Adepticon has managed to establish itself as a gold standard for GW-related tournament. Something similar like 'Dakka Approved' or "Bolter and Chainsword Approved' or 'Kyoto Approved' the people would respect almost as much as 'GW approved' would have to be the final step.

I'm happy playing with unapproved rules, but I can see why you want to do this – to encourage 'pick up and play' games.

While I like Kid's idea (he generally has pretty spiffy ideas anyway), and I'd be happy to go to a campaign weekend/tournament to help playtest an army, there's no substitute for gaming with reasonable people who're willing to try new things.

There are plenty of people out there qualified to produce a valid army list. The old Citidel Journal used to have stuff that was approved. Ideally you'd need someway of pooling the different entries and then letting the community vote on it. The rules with the winning vote would become the accepted army list for the next 12 months. Perhaps even apply a Wikipedia approach so that they can be updated over time.

I kinda like what bell of lost souls is doing with their warhammer 30,000 project. I think if you took an approach like that, made a good or at least readable site to document everything and have lots of pics of cool conversions and stuff.. and really get yourself an audience, I'm sure GW would at least look at it .. who knows, if they like it enough they might put it in WD or link it from their site.. or make some Apocalypse datasheets based on it.

On that note, maybe if you presented it as an apocalypse thing instead of regular codex army list, you might have better luck with GW recognizing it in some way

I'd like to see what Yakface has to say about this.

Yakface,
If a group of us wants to create and playtest alternative HOUSE RULES Codices, which shouldn't be an IP breaker as long as we don't sell them or claim them as genuine, how would you feel about hosting that here?
Would you give us a special forum?
Would you act as final arbiter to keep us from micromanaging the codices?


If Yak's okay with that, I'd like to call dibs on Codex: Cults.
Hmm... that would be a big subject... Okay... I'd like to call dibs on the Genestealer and Chaos sections of Codex: Cults.


Eric

I've been at this kind of thing for a while here and before that at Dysartes. I'm not sure any kind of consensus or approval is required (or even a good idea). A high profile portal with a related discussion area may be a good idea.

If you have seen my work at Warseer (Stop jeering and hissing back there) some of us have done extensive work in several threads to create a space dwarf revival called the Varingyr.

It includes a background thread, a Rules thread, and a concept art thread. There is lot's of good stuff.

I would totally on board with porting some of it over to here. I know one of the Varingyr supports is making a Wiki as well.

I also started work on a generic Cults codex that used a doctrine style system called "Dogmas" to create a huge variety of cult armies from Stealers, to Chaos, to Enslavers, to the RT era Vampires, to Imperial cults.

So, I'm up for the challenge.

multiple replies:

Easy E:
"Isn't this the method they used to create army lists for Epic Armageddon on the Specialist games website?

The question I always have is how do you get other people to playtest and give feedback on your homebrew list? You will notice that on most forums the Rules Dev sections are practically a barren wasteland. "

The problem wtih the proposed rules forum is lack of follow up and lack of a goal, so mostly they're thought exercises. I think an effort at making 'official fan-based' rules we'd have to focus on orphaned armies like L&D that people already have have done rather than asking people to do massive conversions for a pie in the sky project.

Do you know how Specialist games did it?

Abby:
"Wouldn't this risk running afoul of GW's IP attack dogs? You'd basically be writing rules based on GW's IP. Of course GW isn't going to go after little Johnny if all he does is make some house rules and FAQs for use with his local gaming group. But if you started writng your own lists and distributing them, and (more importantly) if they started gaining widespread recognition and acceptance, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ended up with a Ceast & Desist and/or lawsuit. "

Yeah the risk is there but there are tons of websites out there with house rules and AFAIK they have not gotten cease and desist orders. Maybe if someone was rewriting the Space Marine codex and encouraging people not to buy GW's there's be an issue but I don't think something like this would. Of course it would be best to put up a thorough copyright notice.

Corporal Saint:

"Kroot and Lost and Damned are good options in that case, with Genestealer cult and Adeptus Mechanicus after that."

Yeah I think those 2 are the most prominent orphan armies. IG and Marine varients will be joining them soon enough.

An excellent idea, but very difficult to put into practice. Democracy's great in theory, but you need a benevolent dictator to say 'right, that's it'. With no deadline, where do you decide? Of course, if you manage to organise a tournament, then two months before should be fine for a final version; and you can tweak it based on the results.

Any project needs a completion date. Was it Orsen Wells who said "movies are never finished, only abandoned"? So you do need a time table like:

Post original list, play test, comments - 3 months
Tournament
Feedback, editing, replaytest - 3 months
Post final list
Get indy tournaments to include it as an allowed list.

Wolfstan:
"Perhaps even apply a Wikipedia approach so that they can be updated over time"
I was thinking more like a blog than a wiki. I can see a wiki writing project just falling apart.

George Spiggot
"I'm not sure any kind of consensus or approval is required (or even a good idea)"
I think it is if you want to ever see those rules used in more places than your own group, or your own imagination in may case :(

So conclusions:
I think L&D and Kroot would be the best subjects for a serious effort since they already exist and have support.
A project would need an author and an editor and people willing to accept decisions.
Seems there would be grassroots support for something like this.

Who wants to take the next step?

MagickalMemories wrote:I'd like to see what Yakface has to say about this.

Yakface,
If a group of us wants to create and playtest alternative HOUSE RULES Codices, which shouldn't be an IP breaker as long as we don't sell them or claim them as genuine, how would you feel about hosting that here?
Would you give us a special forum?
Would you act as final arbiter to keep us from micromanaging the codices?


If Yak's okay with that, I'd like to call dibs on Codex: Cults.
Hmm... that would be a big subject... Okay... I'd like to call dibs on the Genestealer and Chaos sections of Codex: Cults.


Eric

GW has never made any attempt to stop people coming up with house rules for their game, nor could they unless people attempted to sell the product using trademarked names or images from their game. So in short, of course it is fine!


That said, we will soon(ish) have a new system in place on Dakka that would be absolutely perfect for people to collaborate on stuff like this. I won't go into any concrete details yet, but feel free to work on stuff now in the proposed rules forum and then when the new system is launched later this year you will easily be able to transfer the content over.

Hey all! Has anyone been to the GW apoc formations page recently? They did up update and added a Kroot Mercs datafax to the page.

If you look at it you can almost say that this is the update Kroot players have been waiting for! Just keep the current points costs (for the Kroot Mercs rules army). Add the extra points for the Datafax (The xx pts + Models bit) to the Master Shaper Points cost for his special ability and weapon. Then use the special rules for the units listed to replace the special rules for the currently existing units!

I might be jumping the gun but im VERY excited to see this

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Wouldn't this risk running afoul of GW's IP attack dogs? You'd basically be writing rules based on GW's IP. Of course GW isn't going to go after little Johnny if all he does is make some house rules and FAQs for use with his local gaming group. But if you started writng your own lists and distributing them, and (more importantly) if they started gaining widespread recognition and acceptance, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if you ended up with a Ceast & Desist and/or lawsuit.

The NetEpic people have been writing updates for 2nd edition Epic for something around a decade now. The trick is to avoid stealing GW's fluff. Use original artwork and prose and you're golden. Hell, Jervis loves the NetEpic people.

KidKyoto:
Do you know how Specialist games did it?

They set up the infrastructure on their own website. People (unpaid fans) were appointed as "Army Champions" with control over an army list. Interested parties made suggestions and playtested things. The Army Champion would then present the most recent version of the army list to Jervis.

Things are less corporately-controlled these days. Most of the action takes place at Tactical Command, and there is no longer any significant input from Jervis or his successor, Andy Hall. Those who check the Specialist Games website will see that the newest versions of the Army Lists are still available.

The nature of Epic Armageddon army lists (specialized rather than generic) makes alternate fan lists easy to swallow. "Oh, this isn't the Legio Victorum Titan Legion list, this is the Legio Ultima list. It has big groups of Warhound Titans and tanks instead of Knights." There are around four reasonably well-tested Squat army lists available (though not on the SG website).

Marconz over at Tactical Command is engaged in an effort to wrest even more power over the too-slow Specialist Games and Epic Rules Update Committee, creating a parallel rules update process. This is tricky business, as he has to be careful not to "split" the Epic Community again the way Epic 40K did.

No one has reviled the Pan Fo in this thread yet? Seriously?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I think it is if you want to ever see those rules used in more places than your own group, or your own imagination in may case

If I take my Squat list as an example 90% of the feedback I receive is from people who liked my list and wanted me to see theirs, most of them want to build a Squat list from scratch with a few wanting to recreate the RT list in 4th edition, there are as many squat army concepts as there are Squat players, getting down to deciding if such and such a model is right hardly ever happens. Attempting to reach a consensus here would be a waste of time IMO. The 'army champion' route has merit.

Phausi wrote:No one has reviled the Pan Fo in this thread yet? Seriously?

We are swan to secrecy!

Shhhh! Tell no-one!

George Spiggott wrote:If I take my Squat list as an example 90% of the feedback I receive is from people who liked my list and wanted me to see theirs, most of them want to build a Squat list from scratch with a few wanting to recreate the RT list in 4th edition, there are as many squat army concepts as there are Squat players, getting down to deciding if such and such a model is right hardly ever happens.

Exactly the same with Adeptus Mechanicus. My approach has always been stick to the background where necessary, but keep a light touch and an open mind for great new ideas.

Attempting to reach a consensus here would be a waste of time IMO. The 'army champion' route has merit.

True story, that.